Should zoosexuality be legal?

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Well, I'm not sure if the animal has any rights that the Libertarian is obligated to respect. While one might say the animal owns itself or makes choices, most animals are not self-aware, so the animal's claim to natural rights are only slightly less tenuous than that of a fetus. This is however complicated by those animals who are self-aware, such as the dolphin.

     With that much said, animals have little or no capacity to exercise other natural rights. A lion cannot buy or sell property, & a possum cannot exercise its right to freedom of the press by publishing a book in dissent towards the government. If an entity cannot engage in those activities related to natural rights, I am not sure that the prohibition on aggression applies to it, since the prohibition against aggression is an outgrowth of the same basic fact as all other libertarian rights; that is that a person is the sole owner of his or herself.

     With that much said, I disagree with making zoophilia a crime, though I would require consent of the animal's owner if said owner happens to be any person other than the one who wishes to engage in zoophiliac relations with the animal.

     *Sits back & waits for the controversy to swell*

[Associate Justice PiT]

By definition, a sexual orientation cannot be criminalized.

Of course it could. Look at homosexuality up to the mid twentieth century in the first world.

     Though I suspect that in practice, the homosexual acts would be outlawed by such laws rather than the actual state of one being a homosexual.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Well, I'm not sure if the animal has any rights that the Libertarian is obligated to respect. While one might say the animal owns itself or makes choices, most animals are not self-aware, so the animal's claim to natural rights are only slightly less tenuous than that of a fetus. This is however complicated by those animals who are self-aware, such as the dolphin.

     With that much said, animals have little or no capacity to exercise other natural rights. A lion cannot buy or sell property, & a possum cannot exercise its right to freedom of the press by publishing a book in dissent towards the government. If an entity cannot engage in those activities related to natural rights, I am not sure that the prohibition on aggression applies to it, since the prohibition against aggression is an outgrowth of the same basic fact as all other libertarian rights; that is that a person is the sole owner of his or herself.

     With that much said, I disagree with making zoophilia a crime, though I would require consent of the animal's owner if said owner happens to be any person other than the one who wishes to engage in zoophiliac relations with the animal.

     *Sits back & waits for the controversy to swell*

Couldn't you say the same things about a person with a severe mental handicap?  and who decides which animals are "sefl aware"?

If the living entity can't consent, you can't have sex with it.  Build a device that reads the thoughts of animals, get consent, then I'll let you knock your sox off and get your rocks off.

     Well Einzige has already addressed the issue of a person with a severe mental handicap.

     As for determining self-awareness, one could consider the test of an animal looking at itself in the mirror. If I look at myself in a mirror, I know that I am looking at myself. The same is true for a gorilla or a dolphin.  A bird, however, does not recognize this. It will chirp at it's reflection for hours, because it genuinely believes it to be another bird. That much indicates a lack of awareness of the individuality of oneself.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Well, I'm not sure if the animal has any rights that the Libertarian is obligated to respect. While one might say the animal owns itself or makes choices, most animals are not self-aware, so the animal's claim to natural rights are only slightly less tenuous than that of a fetus. This is however complicated by those animals who are self-aware, such as the dolphin.

     With that much said, animals have little or no capacity to exercise other natural rights. A lion cannot buy or sell property, & a possum cannot exercise its right to freedom of the press by publishing a book in dissent towards the government. If an entity cannot engage in those activities related to natural rights, I am not sure that the prohibition on aggression applies to it, since the prohibition against aggression is an outgrowth of the same basic fact as all other libertarian rights; that is that a person is the sole owner of his or herself.

     With that much said, I disagree with making zoophilia a crime, though I would require consent of the animal's owner if said owner happens to be any person other than the one who wishes to engage in zoophiliac relations with the animal.

     *Sits back & waits for the controversy to swell*

Couldn't you say the same things about a person with a severe mental handicap?  and who decides which animals are "sefl aware"?

If the living entity can't consent, you can't have sex with it.  Build a device that reads the thoughts of animals, get consent, then I'll let you knock your sox off and get your rocks off.

     Well Einzige has already addressed the issue of a person with a severe mental handicap.

     As for determining self-awareness, one could consider the test of an animal looking at itself in the mirror. If I look at myself in a mirror, I know that I am looking at myself. The same is true for a gorilla or a dolphin.  A bird, however, does not recognize this. It will chirp at its reflection for hours, because it genuinely believes it to be another bird. That much indicates a lack of awareness of the individuality of oneself.

There are some animals that aren't "aware" of themselves as an individual that still experience emotions. Besides, if a person wants to have sex with any non-human organism it's probably a good thing they're taken off the streets

     Well yes, but natural rights have to do with self-awareness, not emotions. Elephants are definitely capable of emoting, though I do not know if all elephants can be categorized as being aware of their individuality. I do know that some elephants have recognized themselves in mirrors, though.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Well, I'm not sure if the animal has any rights that the Libertarian is obligated to respect. While one might say the animal owns itself or makes choices, most animals are not self-aware, so the animal's claim to natural rights are only slightly less tenuous than that of a fetus. This is however complicated by those animals who are self-aware, such as the dolphin.

     With that much said, animals have little or no capacity to exercise other natural rights. A lion cannot buy or sell property, & a possum cannot exercise its right to freedom of the press by publishing a book in dissent towards the government. If an entity cannot engage in those activities related to natural rights, I am not sure that the prohibition on aggression applies to it, since the prohibition against aggression is an outgrowth of the same basic fact as all other libertarian rights; that is that a person is the sole owner of his or herself.

     With that much said, I disagree with making zoophilia a crime, though I would require consent of the animal's owner if said owner happens to be any person other than the one who wishes to engage in zoophiliac relations with the animal.

     *Sits back & waits for the controversy to swell*

Couldn't you say the same things about a person with a severe mental handicap?  and who decides which animals are "sefl aware"?

If the living entity can't consent, you can't have sex with it.  Build a device that reads the thoughts of animals, get consent, then I'll let you knock your sox off and get your rocks off.

     Well Einzige has already addressed the issue of a person with a severe mental handicap.

     As for determining self-awareness, one could consider the test of an animal looking at itself in the mirror. If I look at myself in a mirror, I know that I am looking at myself. The same is true for a gorilla or a dolphin.  A bird, however, does not recognize this. It will chirp at its reflection for hours, because it genuinely believes it to be another bird. That much indicates a lack of awareness of the individuality of oneself.

There are some animals that aren't "aware" of themselves as an individual that still experience emotions. Besides, if a person wants to have sex with any non-human organism it's probably a good thing they're taken off the streets

     Well yes, but natural rights have to do with self-awareness, not emotions. Elephants are definitely capable of emoting, though I do not know if all elephants can be categorized as being aware of their individuality. I do know that some elephants have recognized themselves in mirrors, though.

Even if it doesn't recognize itself as an individual, it still feels the pain, it still has consciousness, just not as advanced as ours.

     I see what you mean. However, the idea would be to consider such a thing immoral, but not advocate it being illegal. If a person rapes small animals, his neighbors should mete out swift condemnation of his actions, but not actually be punished legally for it.

     The reason for not wanting to make it a crime is that the libertarian, abhorring violence of aggression, wishes to make any violence or coercion against the criminal be towards the ends of making restitution to the victim.

     Furthermore here, the legal system is to serve the victim & ratify the victim's will, within reason. I do not see how a dog could communicate its will properly to determine how exactly it wishes to be restituted.

     That's basically an explanation of why the self-awareness aspect is important. Gorillas & dolphins can't really be taught to communicate with humans in advanced ways, though, so that rather precludes them from being able to be served properly as victims.